John Rawls believes that if people were in the original position of equality, where the facts of who they are is hidden behind the veil of ignorance, they would not choose the principles of utilitarianism or libertarianism. Instead, they would accept the two core principles of justice - equal basic liberties for all citizens, and social and economic inequality (Sandel, 2010). In this paper, I will be evaluating the two principles of justice to show how these principles can be the basis of equality in a society of the “original position”. I will begin by providing a detailed analysis and assessment of the two principles, and discuss how Rawls' principles can create equality for a just society in the “original position”. I will then provide an …show more content…
Rather than equally distributing wealth among the population, Rawls believes that certain social and economic inequalities can be used to the greater advantage of helping those, who are struggling in society. He called this the difference principle (Wenar). The second feature of the second principle of justice is to “correct [the] social and economic disadvantage” in society by providing everyone of different class, equal opportunities to start at the same point and develop their talents (Sandel, 2010). However, these “equal social opportunities” are not completely equal as even though we all begin at the same point, abilities and talents are not distributed evenly among the population. Rawls believes that these talents do not come from hard work as they can allow some to move forward quicker than others with less effort. But in this case, I believe otherwise as some talents such as ballet and art takes lots of practice to rise above others, who may have started learning at the same time. They may not have taken longer to develop their talent, but time does not equal effort. Other than this idea, I believe that if we were in the “original position” of equality, this principle of justice and the difference principle can create equality in a society by providing everyone equal opportunities on the “same playing field” to grow regardless …show more content…
They may argue that each person is born differently and so based on their contribution to society, they should be given only a certain amount of rights. For example, they may argue that someone born with a disability should be given less basic rights than others, as they aren’t as productive and will not contribute as much to society. This would prevent them from reaping the same rewards as others, even if he or she is given the same equal opportunities to accomplish something. However, although this argument is valid, Rawls’ would argue that even though some people may be entitled to less, they are “no less worthy” or less deserving than others for equal basic rights (Sandel, 2010). In addition, these principles are based on the idea that each person is standing behind a veil of ignorance that allows people of different backgrounds, skills and more to be judged equally, as we ourselves do not know where we personally stand in society. So, to prevent hurting ourselves once the veil is lifted, we want to give everyone equal rights in the world. Another argument against Rawls’ second principle of justice is the lack of incentives that can motivate the wealthy to continue to use their talent to support those lower than them. Someone may argue that
Nevertheless, our social structure isn’t a brick wall were individuals are trapped in there social class. We are still able with education and the opportunities to shape our lives and achieve our full potential. Harlon L. Dalton emulates the possibility within his story about Horatio Alger, “neither Alger nor the myth suggests that we start out equal. Nor does the myth necessarily require that we be given an equal opportunity to succeed. Rather, Alger’s point is that each of us has the power to create our own opportunities.”
Imagine that rational actor X has been charged with the responsibility of developing the guiding principles for a totaly new type of social contract for today’s society. Is there a way for actor X to perform this task in a truly equitable manner? Consider that “with respect to any complex mater of deep human importance there is n o ‘innocent eye’ —no way of seeing the world that is entirely neutral and free of cultural shaping.” 1 As an entrenched member of a particular culture the complete removal of personal biases and prejudices from within the human psyche is not possible; nonetheless, it would of course be necessary to take steps to at least minimize their effects. In his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice , John Rawls suggests that exactly this type of reduction is possible by figuratively stepping behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ int o what he labels the ‘original position’ —this paper is an introduction to the contractarian thinking of John Rawls and its relation to the original position as expressed in his 1971 book, A Theory of Justice.
The interpretation of freedom can sometimes be viewed differently among people, which creates the pursuit of liberty to be much more arduous. Property, the right to vote, and the color of your skin, all contribute to the equality or inequality we face when searching to create a society based on a populations overall needs and whether or not we have a voice in electing our representatives. Freedom is a burdensome idea that is defined differently among society and leads to several areas of conflict and confusion. Even though people have signed petitions and laws to create freedom, several instances have emerged documenting how freedom and equality are harder to gain. In order to eliminate oppression in any environment, it is necessary to level
If we had equality we would have no competition. There would be no reason to play sports. You could never win anything; every game would be a
John Rawls divided up his theory into four distinct parts; the first part consisted of his belief of primary goods, next is the formation of principles of justice, third is the institutionalization of society, and finally the last part of his theory is the actual workings within society . The general concept of Rawls’s theory is, “all primary goods must be distributed equally unless the unequal distribution of any of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored” . In order to analyze this correctly Rawls’ terms must be defined; according to Rawls a primary good are “things that every rational man is presumed to want. Goods normally have use regardless of a person’s rational plan to life is” . Some examples of a primary good are: basic rights, opportunity, and income to name a few. With the unders...
Why does it matter? Why do humans harp on the topics of justice and equality consistently? The answers to above mentioned questions aren’t easy to formulate, and they open up a door to greater questions about morality, humanity and so forth. Humans live in a cooperative society. The aim of this body of organization is to advance as a whole and individually simultaneously. John Rawls’ states this goal of human society in Distributive Justice published in 1979: “We may think of the human society as a more or less self-sufficient association regulated by a common conception of justice and aimed at advancing the good of its members.” Hence, our society is shaped by an idea of justice – one that is applicable to all members of this society, and this set conception of justice promotes the advancement of the society and the individuals living in
Rawls states that you cannot reimburse for the sufferings of the distressed by enhancing the joys of the successful. Fairness according to him occurs when the society makes sure that every individual is treated equally before the law and given a c...
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”. The principle of equality “does not imply that we must treat two groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights t...
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,
In order to form this fair society, Rawls creates the idea of the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance removes the prejudice from our decision making by allowing us to act as if we did not know our special talents, our race, our gender, or anything else that makes us unique individuals. Now because we do not know where we would fall in this fair society from behind the veil of ignorance, our natural instinct would be to raise the lowest class of people to a place that we would be comfortable in if we were to be there. This would also lower the stance of the highest class of people, but they would still be a higher class.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.
One might argue that behind the Veil of Ignorance, society will be able to develop such fundamental rights and equality naturally. Considering that modern society can be seen to have developed laws and cultural rules without the veil of ignorance, it stands to reason that Rawls’ suggested principles are unnecessary. Looking at gender inequality, German Arianism and its sharp declines suggests that society is self-correcting – particularly if the society in question exists in the modern era where international pressure for the maintenance of fundamental liberties, equality of opportunity and support for the disadvantaged is exercised. The representatives behind the Veil of Ignorance can be expected to recognise, however, the potential for deviation and adopt a conservative approach - they will not risk society’s basic structure.... ...
...e achieved when the Liberty and Difference Principle are enacted with the veil of ignorance. On the contrary, Nozick argues that Rawls’s theory is exactly the sort of patterned principle that infringes upon individual liberty. As an alternative, Nozick provides his unpatterned principle as the ideal distribution of goods in a society. To me, Rawls’s argues his theory in a manner where his principles of justice are not only difficult to achieve, but ultimately are exceedingly deficient in providing general utility. The veil of ignorance has proved to be almost impossible as well as unethical. The Difference Principle in itself is unable to justly distribute property since it clearly violates an individual’s liberty. Since Rawls’s method of distributive justice is rendered unreasonable and inefficient, it leaves us with a clear answer derived from two disjunctions.
...egarding their classes within the state, which is essentially the idea of maximin. Therefore Rawls' approach to justice conveys the notion that our response to poverty should begin on a state level, for it is through the building of just state institutions that his two main principles can begin to take effect, which in turn, as Rawls' would argue, would lead to a more just and equal state which benefited persons of all social rankings.